Skip to main content

About your Search

Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5 (some duplicates have been removed)
Dec 8, 2012 4:00am PST
that the justices will look at two questions. first, can the federal government refuse to recognize these marriages in the states where they are already legal and secondly, what's to come of them in california. >>> just a day after washington state become the latest allowing gay couples to get married, the supreme court said it will delve into one of the nation's most hotly debated issues. >> the highest court in the land has decided to take up what will be one of the biggest civil rights cases that this court could ever hear. >> the court agreed to take up the legal battle over california's proposition 8 passed by voters four years ago ending same-sex marriage in the state. a federal appeals court ruled the ban unconstitutional on grounds that applied only in california. but now that the supreme court is weighing in, the justices could get to the more basic issue. can any state ban same-sex marriage. nine permit it or will, so does washington diagnosis. the court also agreed to hear a challenge to the federal defense of marriage absent. it defines marriage as, quote, only a legal union between one
Dec 9, 2012 9:00am PST
. they will rule on weather they have the right to marry and whether the federal government can override state's decisions. any outcome will make history. joining me now, jonathan turley. it's good to have you with us. as we talk about this, public opinions have certainly evolved. you have said that the court has been slow to follow. has the court evolved far enough to legalize marriage equality especially with the prop 8 and the case before it and how close do you expect the vote could be? >> i expect it to be very close. what you have to recall is it was only in 2003 that the court in lawrence v. texas overturned a decision called hardwick which criminalized homosexuality. the decision of the court that said you can criminalize it was decided by justice powell who never even met a homosexual not realizing his clerk was gay. this court evolves more slowly than society at large. it will be close. there are great risks. this could be the brown v. board of education for gay and lesbian couples. or the case before it that embraced segregation. it's very hard to predict. it leaves many of us very,
Dec 2, 2012 9:00am PST
with revenue. >> can i ask you, is the government capable of spending less money than it takes in? can they generate a surplus in these times. >> they did it during bill clinton. >> that was a couple decades ago. >> lyndon johnson was president. it can be done. both parties are guilty. the democrats spend more money without raising taxes. you can't do those things. this is a balance sheet deal. this is not a democratic versus republican issue. the difference between the parties is how much taxes and how many cuts. you need both. we are going to be in for some rough economic times, but it's going to be two quarters. that's what's going to have to happen. i don't think the compromises will be made that need to be made. let me say something about sbiesbie entitlements. we can get $400 billion out of medicare by doing one thing. and that's simply pay doctors and hospitals by the number of patients, not by the number of procedures they do. that's a simple thing to do. we need to pay by the patient, not by the procedure. you're going to have control over cost. >> gentlemen, thank you so much
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5 (some duplicates have been removed)